On CBSs 60 Minutes on Sunday night, national security correspondent David Martin chronicled the seemingly never-ending list of problems with the Pentagons next-generation F-35 fight jet, from cost overruns of $160 billion to technical problems that have plagued the planes development.

When asked if the F-35 program, which is expected to cost some $1.5 trillion over the four-decade life of the program, is now under control, the Pentagons acquisition chief, Frank Kendall, said, "Yes, it is."

But that commitment came with a warning.

Long gone is the time when we're going to pay for mistake after mistake after mistake," said Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the officer who took control of the F-35 program last year. He added that the planes are necessary, however, to keep pace with the technology being developed by U.S. rivals Russia and China.

The concept is that stealth trumps range, firepower and maneuverability. But stealth is affected by computing power and radar networking. Computing power is increasing so rapidly that this short range, under powered poorly armed plane will have a short useful lifespan when and if they do get it right.

I’ve long felt the flaws in the F-35 stem from the concept that the airframe could be adapted to be all things to all people. McNamara tried this with the F-111. He learned (eventually) that trying to make a plane that can do everything for everyone, especially in the hopes of saving costs usually ends up with a design that always costs far more than expected, and also usually results up in a compromise design that doesn’t excel in any particular area.

Its easy to say we aren’t paying for mistakes but this is a CPIF contract so, yes we are paying for mistakes. Ordering fewer jets doesn’t really punish LM so much as it punishes tax payers. It just means the cost per plane goes up, so we pay the same or higher total contract price for fewer units. It really just makes it harder to justify the increasing bill and hastening the death spiral.

What’s interesting - why can different aircraft not be designed that use at least a base of same parts (weapons, propulsion, and other parts), while still having two distinct aircraft (or more)? What is the suppose logic behind a SINGLE aircraft that supposedly can be all things to all branches and purposes?

This is failure to study history. McNamara thought the Air Force, Marines, and Navy could use the same airplane. It was the FB-111. It eventually became a decent tactical bomber, but the Navy version was a failure.

Here we go again with an even more complex tri-service compromise. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps can use the same rifle. Not so with aircraft.

The mantra during F-15 design was "not one pound for air to ground". The result of this focus on air combat with no compromise is the only fighter plane in history never defeated in air combat. The F-22 could have been the next fighter to do this. So we dump it for a tri-service turd.

27
posted on 04/02/2014 9:59:52 AM PDT
by SpeakerToAnimals
(I hope to earn a name in battle)

They should cut the F-35 buy and reopen the F-22 assembly lines. The flyaway cost for the F-35 is now right at the figure for the F-22, for a much less capable airframe.

The original F-22 buy was supposed to be for 650 planes. We ended up with 187 (now less after attrition). We should go ahead and double that number at least. The F-22 is operational now, and all-around superior to the F-35 except for the number of bombs it can carry internally. After the F-22s have cleared the battlespace of threats, any legacy fighter or bomber would do fine dropping bombs from high altitude.

The F-111 actually turned out to be a pretty good aircraft...for the RAAF. The company I retired from made parts for the F-22. We lost that work when it was cancelled. We made parts for the Boeing JSF entry (the Monica). It lost the competition. We made a bunch of stuff for the Comanche stealth helicopter. Twenty years of R&D and billions of dollars and the whole project was scrapped. And then there was the V-22...

If you broke all this waste down to dollars per taxpayer, what do you suppose it would come to?

The F-35 has been in development for over a decade and they are STILL not correct.

It's like deja vu all over again.

They've been made to follow the same political path that doomed the Dornier Do 335 with constantly changing requirements forcing redesign after redesign to meet each new requirement.

The Dornier Do 335 was an amazing airplane, possibly one of the finest piston aircraft ever built, but it, like the F-35, was doomed by the ever changing whims of clueless politicians spending other people's money.

36
posted on 04/02/2014 10:12:41 AM PDT
by GBA
(Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)

Yes. Try to design a single airplane that satisfies the wildly disparate needs of multiple end users, and you will end up with a design that doesn't satisfy anyone's needs.

You'll also end up with a platform that may have an unseen flaw that an enemy can can exploit to eliminate ALL branches' ability to fight and survive.

This is why Bill Clinton forced through the Joint Strike Fighter Program. picked the damn thing. The Globalists needed to slowly erode the military capability of an independent, sovereign United States.

37
posted on 04/02/2014 10:12:50 AM PDT
by Count of Monte Fisto
(The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)

But, the F-22 Raptor will have to support the F-35. And here comes another problem. When the Raptor was produced it was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kids game console in somebodys home gaming system. Still, the U.S. Air Force was forced to use the stealth fighter plane as it was, because that was the way the spec was written. But now, the F-22 must be upgraded through a costly service life extension plan and modernisation program because, If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22, says Hostage to Air Force Times.

Those 180+ F-22s will be awfully busy protecting the 1600+ planned F-35s...

Actually it was a pretty good bomber for the USAF, and a major electronic warfare platform. But it was a total bust as a fighter, which it was originally designed to be, and the Navy never bought a single plane. The fact that they rescued it, doesn’t make it any less McNamaras Folly.

39
posted on 04/02/2014 10:14:58 AM PDT
by Kozak
("It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal" Henry Kissinger)

“The F-22 could have been the next fighter to do this. So we dump it for a tri-service turd.”

A lot of people have this impression from the trashing it’s received in the media. Instead, it’s an operational fighter being deployed where we really want to intimidate an adversary.

Reflect on the fact that the main reason the F-22 lines shut down is that no foreign sales were allowed - it’s considered too good (and too classified) for even our closest allies. Japan and Australia both wanted F-22s.

Friend of my brother's is an AF/ANG vet with about 1500 hours in the "Hog".

When he was in flight training, of course everybody was a true-blue drinker of the blue-suit koolaid and wanted to fly F-15s and F-16s.

He was totally let down when assigned an A-10 slot, thought it was the next thing to driving a farm tractor.

Six months in, he'd decided that nothing was more fun than working down at treetop level and learning how to target with the Mk.I eyeball......he would not have traded his seat for anything else in the USAF.

Lots of “off the shelf” stuff from other aircraft were used to get the F117 flying, not just F16. Later upgrades to keep it compatible with upgrades to other platforms in terms of C3I and LINK systems.

The F117 was in “mod” until it was deactivated, as is the case with just about any aircraft in service.

47
posted on 04/02/2014 10:21:38 AM PDT
by SZonian
(Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)

The F-111 program was not a total loss since they did quite well as a strike aircraft for the Air Force for many decades, and for the Navy the lessons learned from the F-111 as well as many of the subsystems and design innovations such as the AWG-9 radar, the AIM-54 Pheonix missles, and variable geometry wings were rolled into the F-14 which served the Navy well for 30 years.

49
posted on 04/02/2014 10:32:14 AM PDT
by 2CAVTrooper
(Politicians and diapers need to be changed for the same reason)

It’s one of the few modern AF jets that has to be flown by stick an rudder. It is simply a plane for a skilled pilot, no triple redundant flight management system limiting the control inputs or optimizing the flight.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.